But when the only two choices are "good" or "evil" (the game's choice of words, not mine), I assume we're speaking relatively and in generalities. It's not that I consider myself good- in this game, where even freeing a helpless prisoner can have the unintended consequence of dooming somebody else, I don't know if it's possible to really be entirely good. You sentenced two people to death/torment (of which you had no right to do so), and you consider yourself good? Originally posted by Sarsben:I appreciate what the game is trying to do in terms of moral philosophy, but I still think it's a bit ridiculous and stupid how it handles this issue. ![]() Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game for the art and puzzles, but the morality is completely incoherent- one of the most facile and arbitrarily mechanical approaches to moral philosophy I've seen in a game. Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. and it illustrates these points by punishing you for deciding that, on balance, you've been more of a good person than an evil bastard after spending the entire game behaving selflessly, compassionately, rationally, and non-judgementally 80% of the time? Really? After all that, to be considered a good person worthy of forgiveness, all I really had to do is decide that I was really an evil bastard on balance because of those two choices I made? So, the game's message is supposed to be that it's never too late for redemption, cruelty/vengefulness serves no purpose, don't pass judgement on people no matter how awful they've been, blah blah. I picked the angel key at the end, and got the bad ending. I had a similar outcome- I did two "bad" things (releasing the spider to kill the guard and ratting out the winged guy), and did the "good" thing for every other choice in the game. I appreciate what the game is trying to do in terms of moral philosophy, but I still think it's a bit ridiculous and stupid how it handles this issue. Is that what this actually is, a struggle against odds that are heavily stacked against you because of the very nature of the game? Or is it a simple balance issue? That's an interesting idea too, that "sort of good" isn't good enough - you may have been "sort of good" in the events that took place prior to the game, but not good enough to avoid doing something horrific in the heat of the moment. The scales are already heavily tipped toward darkness, so your actions need to be almost entirely (or entirely) pure in order to bring them back. ![]() ![]() I suppose the idea that you do need to be basically perfect fits into the fiction, though. And yet in the final analysis, I was damned anyway! Isn't that kind of ridiculous, that we have to be basically perfect through the entire game to achieve salvation? I get that you're not exactly a good guy going into things, but that's a serious imbalance. (One was actually a mistake, I meant to release the rodent but mixed up the symbols on the lever, so he died instead.) The rest, seven or eight or however many decisions remained, went in my favour - showing I had a good heart. Okay, so I finished the game, stood to be judged, and had only two strikes against me. I'm not going to bother with the spoiler tag, since the whole thing is basically a spoiler, so consider yourself warned, read on at your own risk, etc. ![]() This is about the ending of the game and is thus likely to include information that you won't be aware of until you've finished it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |